EVE Search - Unique Mission Item Theft Rebalance

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Unique Mission Item Theft Rebalance

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] .. 22 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Domanique Altares Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance 2366	Posted - 2014.01.29 04:54:00 - [571] - Quote This would be an excellent change. Giving missioners the choice to die before I steal their trinket as opposed to after would be fantastic. Rifterlings pirate corporation is now recruitng members for lowsec PvP operations. Newbie friendly, free T1 frigate and dessy hangar, solo tutoring and PvP classes for new members. Join our in game channel 'weflyrifters' and speak to a recruiter today.
Abdul 'aleem Sumiko Yoshida Corporation 158	Posted - 2014.01.29 05:19:00 - [572] - Quote Domanique Altares wrote: This would be an excellent change. Thanks for your support. Be sure to like the original post. There is a suggestion in Forums & Ideas that will make it harder for griefers to grief missioners. Unique Mission Item Theft Rebalance Be sure to "like" the original post if you support it.
Abla Tive State War Academy Caldari State 28	Posted - 2014.01.29 06:44:00 - [573] - Quote I agree that the mission itself should be redesigned. Failing that, yes, flagging people not in the fleet that generated the room with a suspect flag makes sense. It brings forward in time the opportunity for PvP
Gislin D'ahl EVE University Ivy League 30	Posted - 2014.01.29 08:43:00 - [574] - Quote I read the original post and I read every single reply in the thread. I started out being in support in a general sort of way...by that I mean I didn't see anything inherently wrong with it. However, I saw a couple suggestions that fixed the problem without implementing the suspect flag, and I saw a mistaken opinion (not "fact" or "proof", "opinion") about the meaning of ownership, space, and trespassing. Then, I read discussions about flagging ninja salvagers and possibly turning mission pockets into pvp zones and I decided I don't like the suggestion. To repeat, yes, I read the entire thread. YES, I understood the points made, on both sides. My response: The initial issue is COSMOS missions being broken by gankers. The primary point of the original post is the weight attached to COSMOS missions. They're unique, they can only be done once, they have exceptionally high rewards, they're incredibly fragile. The suggested response affects ALL missions in the game with pockets. This would therefore include mining missions, security missions, and storyline missions that include either mining or combat. However, Mining Missions, Security Missions, and Storyline Missions are not as fragile as COSMOS missions. Their time frame is longer (Most last 1 week with a few rare exceptions), the standings hit for a failure is much smaller, and there is no action or inaction that can prevent you from having access to them in the future. If COSMOS missions are broken in some way, a fix should be provided that only affects COSMOS missions. Regular pocket missions aren't broken, so they shouldn't be subjected to the unintended consequences of a change to COSMOS missions. I rarely if ever ninja salvage. Sometimes I salvage yellow rat wrecks in asteroid belts on my alts (I'm not allowed to on this character). But I definitely want to encourage salvagers to do their thing (and to feel as safe as possible in Eve's unsafe universe). Without their salvage, I can't manufacture rigs. I don't gank anyone. But, I understand gankers want to play the game and have fun too. I don't think the solution to dealing with gankers is to limit their ability to gank. I think the solution to gankers is for me to build a better mission/mining ship. That means skilling properly and fitting my security mission ships with an omni-tank instead of a rat specific tank or fitting ANY tank at all on a mining ship (as a proactive defense against unintended PVP) . I also have multiple mission/mining bases. If a pesky ganker is messing with me, I can clone jump into a completely different empire and pick my play back up there. tl;dr This suggestion would have negative unintended consequences. A more constructive solution would be to seed COSMOS mission sites through several different locations, as well as allowing uncompleted missions to reset during downtime. Whatever the solution, it should only apply to COSMOS missions as they're the only ones that are vulnerable.
Abdul 'aleem Sumiko Yoshida Corporation 163	Posted - 2014.01.29 08:49:00 - [575] - Quote Gislin D'ahl wrote: tl;dr This suggestion would have negative unintended consequences. A more constructive solution would be to seed COSMOS mission sites through several different locations, as well as allowing uncompleted missions to reset during downtime. Whatever the solution, it should only apply to COSMOS missions as they're the only ones that are vulnerable. If you can give the basis for your opinion that there would be "negative unintended consequences" we can definitely discuss them. Also, no one has proven the false claim that all mission sites by default would turn into "PvP warzones." Many people have posted why this is false. And yes it is possible that in addition to this suggested suspect flag for mission invasion, more improvements can be made. The combination of a suspect flag for mission invasion and more randomized mission locations was agreed to be a powerful game balancing combination. Neither prevents missioners from being locked out of content by another player's actions. SO in the future this will also need to be addressed. There is a suggestion in Forums & Ideas that will make it harder for griefers to grief missioners. Unique Mission Item Theft Rebalance Be sure to "like" the original post if you support it.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Hello-There 151	Posted - 2014.01.29 11:10:00 - [576] - Quote The original post was regarding the theft of very specific loot items for ransom that could wreck a players COSMOS mission line. I was originally for a change in the mission itself to make the loot item secure given the unique nature of the mission line and the item itself. I have to give a -1 (probably with a multiplier :D ) to the idea of making players suspect for jumping to a mission site. What if I'm scanning for my lost drones and jump to yours by mistake? Am I suspect simply for warping to a freely accessible area of space? What about when I scan down a combat anomaly only to discover somebody got there before me, do I go suspect then? Any player in any area of space is free to travel wherever they like. When (and only when) they commit a criminal act they should be tagged as such. Other than that we should be free to travel wherever we choose.
Abdul 'aleem Sumiko Yoshida Corporation 163	Posted - 2014.01.29 11:13:00 - [577] - Quote Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote: The original post was regarding the theft of very specific loot items for ransom that could wreck a players COSMOS mission line. I was originally for a change in the mission itself to make the loot item secure given the unique nature of the mission line and the item itself. I have to give a -1 (probably with a multiplier :D ) to the idea of making players suspect for jumping to a mission site. What if I'm scanning for my lost drones and jump to yours by mistake? Am I suspect simply for warping to a freely accessible area of space? What about when I scan down a combat anomaly only to discover somebody got there before me, do I go suspect then? Any player in any area of space is free to travel wherever they like. When (and only when) they commit a criminal act they should be tagged as such. Other than that we should be free to travel wherever we choose. As has been discussed, the current warning system would be in full effect prior to any flag being applied. There is a suggestion that will make it harder for griefers to grief missioners. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion Click "like" in the original post to support it.
Samuel Wess Stain Police Happy Cartel 53	Posted - 2014.01.29 11:15:00 - [578] - Quote Why not move all this item theft missions in low sec ? Walk into the club like "What up? I got a big cockpit!"
Abdul 'aleem Sumiko Yoshida Corporation 163	Posted - 2014.01.29 11:29:00 - [579] - Quote Samuel Wess wrote: Why not move all this item theft missions in low sec ? Definitely one possibility. However, this thread was made to discuss the suggestion to add a suspect flag for mission invasion, so it is off topic. There is a suggestion that will make it harder for griefers to grief missioners. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion Click "like" in the original post to support it.
Lloyd Roses Blue-Fire 491	Posted - 2014.01.29 11:42:00 - [580] - Quote What would happen with agressive drones + suspect nearby? To me, that sounds like it would bridge the need to shoot the MTU first <.< "I honestly thought I was in lowsec" Moving pictures: The Enyo

Abdul 'aleem Sumiko Yoshida Corporation 163	Posted - 2014.01.29 11:44:00 - [581] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: What would happen with agressive drones + suspect nearby? To me, that sounds like it would bridge the need to shoot the MTU first <.< Please explain your opinion and the factual basis for it, so that everyone can understand it and discuss. There is a suggestion that will make it harder for griefers to grief missioners. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion Click "like" in the original post to support it.
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 2638	Posted - 2014.01.29 11:46:00 - [582] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: What would happen with agressive drones + suspect nearby? To me, that sounds like it would bridge the need to shoot the MTU first <.< That's been nerfed now. Oh god.
dexington Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1086	Posted - 2014.01.29 11:50:00 - [583] - Quote Abdul 'aleem wrote: As has been discussed, the current warning system would be in full effect prior to any flag being applied and protecting the innocent. How exactly would this warning help people getting fleet warped?, and what will happen to people who get disconnected and have dropped fleet when reconnecting? I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Abdul 'aleem Sumiko Yoshida Corporation 163	Posted - 2014.01.29 11:52:00 - [584] - Quote dexington wrote: Abdul 'aleem wrote: As has been discussed, the current warning system would be in full effect prior to any flag being applied and protecting the innocent. How exactly would this warning help people getting fleet warped?, and what will happen to people who get disconnected and have dropped fleet when reconnecting? Those situations have been addressed in earlier posts. You will have to do a little digging to find them due to the thread crapping, though. If you have a specific concern that has not already been addressed, just post the concern and the factual basis for it and we can discuss. There is a suggestion that will make it harder for griefers to grief missioners. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion Click "like" in the original post to support it.
Lawson Finch Sharke and Finch LLP 0	Posted - 2014.01.29 12:10:00 - [585] - Quote This is great! It will deter salvagers and thieves from going in solo and encourages team-play. Team-play is good for the game! So, I get myself a gang of ruffians and go crash some poor sop's mission. Me and my gang all get suspect flagged. One of the following things happen: * The mission-runner sees several suspect-flagged ships in his mission, wets his knickers and warps out. All his wrecks, loot, remaining NPC and mission objectives are ours! Victory! * The mission-runner sees several suspect-flagged ships in his mission and shoots. Our gang, having RR, overwhelms the mission-runner and explodes him! His wreck and modules, NPC wrecks, loot, remaining NPC and mission objectives are ours! Victory! * The missioner hollers in Local for help and invites a couple of white-knights. My gang hollers in local for more miscreants wanting to get in on the action. A great fight ensues, the vigilantes get slaughtered, the mission gets well and truly ****** up, all the mission-runner's wrecks, loot, remaining NPC and mission objectives are ours! Victory! With the nerf to aggressive drones, this looks like to be the ideal replacement for giving mission runners headaches! +1
Kenrailae Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships. 145	Posted - 2014.01.29 12:11:00 - [586] - Quote @ OP No. Welcome to Eve. The Law is a point of View
Abdul 'aleem Sumiko Yoshida Corporation 164	Posted - 2014.01.29 12:19:00 - [587] - Quote Lawson Finch wrote: This is great! It will deter salvagers and thieves from going in solo and encourages team-play. Team-play is good for the game! So, I get myself a gang of ruffians and go crash some poor sop's mission. Me and my gang all get suspect flagged. One of the following things happen: * The mission-runner sees several suspect-flagged ships in his mission, wets his knickers and warps out. All his wrecks, loot, remaining NPC and mission objectives are ours! Victory! * The mission-runner sees several suspect-flagged ships in his mission and shoots. Our gang, having RR, overwhelms the mission-runner and explodes him! His wreck and modules, NPC wrecks, loot, remaining NPC and mission objectives are ours! Victory! * The missioner hollers in Local for help and invites a couple of white-knights. My gang hollers in local for more miscreants wanting to get in on the action. A great fight ensues, the vigilantes get slaughtered, the mission gets well and truly ****** up, all the mission-runner's wrecks, loot, remaining NPC and mission objectives are ours! Victory! With the nerf to aggressive drones, this looks like to be the ideal replacement for giving mission runners headaches! +1 Hey man I totally don't think it will that easy for the griefers; I have faith that the missioners will take advantage of the opportunity to set counter-gank traps and/or hire protection for high risk missions. Some have even posted that they would deliberately accept missions with the sole intention to ambush gankers and mission invaders. There would be many more possibilities available to missioners than currently exist that is for sure. And let's face the facts: if your gang wants to grief a missioner, you can do it pretty much the same before or after this suspect flag is implemented. A suspect flag just gives the missioners more legal options. Thanks for the +1. But, the carebear missioners are going to kill you, and the loot will belong to them There is a suggestion that will make it harder for griefers to grief missioners. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion Click "like" in the original post to support it.
dexington Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1086	Posted - 2014.01.29 12:23:00 - [588] - Quote This suggestion is clearly not as simple as just applying suspect timer to anyone who enters a mission area. You are literally suggesting changes to fleet, fleet warp and the procedure of reconnecting after a disconnect, this is not including what needs to be changed for the ownership of mission sites to work. And you want all this done so people can't steal loot from cosmos missions?, this is beyond ridiculous... I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Lawson Finch Sharke and Finch LLP 0	Posted - 2014.01.29 12:25:00 - [589] - Quote Abdul 'aleem wrote: But, the carebear missioners are going to kill you Honestly, I sincerely hope they give it their best shot! It's going to be a massacre! It's a shame this idea only has a handful of likes and no CSM or DEV interest
Abdul 'aleem Sumiko Yoshida Corporation 164	Posted - 2014.01.29 12:31:00 - [590] - Quote dexington wrote: This suggestion is clearly not as simple as just applying suspect timer to anyone who enters a mission area. You are literally suggesting changes to fleet, fleet warp and the procedure of reconnecting after a disconnect, this is not including what needs to be changed for the ownership of mission sites to work. Only CCP knows how easy or hard it would be to implement. There are a lot of existing mechanics that do things very similar to what would be needed to for a suspect flag for mission invasion to work. They have been posted already supporting the opinion that CCP should be able to make this change. If you know of any specific technical reasons to support your statements, feel free to post them so people can discuss. dexington wrote: And you want all this done so people can't steal loot from cosmos missions?, this is beyond ridiculous... No the intention was never to prevent mission item theft, just to raise the risk of to mission invaders (mission thieves) and balance out the risk/reward equation on both sides. Also, to create more legal options to counter mission invasion since there are really no legitimate legal options right now. The suggested suspect flag for mission invasion accomplishes both of these and much more. There is a suggestion that will make it harder for griefers to grief missioners. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion Click "like" in the original post to support it.

Abdul 'aleem Sumiko Yoshida Corporation 164	Posted - 2014.01.29 12:35:00 - [591] - Quote Lawson Finch wrote: It's a shame this idea only has a handful of likes and no CSM or DEV interest Yeah we agree there. A dev is needed to at least comment on how feasible it would be to implement the suggested suspect flag and to address posts like dexington's. In the meantime, I can only guess based on current mechanics that it would be fairly easy to add. By the way, it is very refreshing to actually see a "pirate" embracing the risks of in-game piracy. You have my respect, sir. Oh and yeah it'll be a massacre, but maybe you at least won't get podded There is a suggestion that will make it harder for griefers to grief missioners. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion Click "like" in the original post to support it.
dexington Caldari Provisions Caldari State 1086	Posted - 2014.01.29 12:42:00 - [592] - Quote Abdul 'aleem wrote: dexington wrote: This suggestion is clearly not as simple as just applying suspect timer to anyone who enters a mission area. You are literally suggesting changes to fleet, fleet warp and the procedure of reconnecting after a disconnect, this is not including what needs to be changed for the ownership of mission sites to work. Only CCP knows how easy or hard it would be to implement. There are a lot of existing mechanics that do things very similar to what would be needed to for a suspect flag for mission invasion to work. They have been posted already supporting the opinion that CCP should be able to make this change. If you know of any specific technical reasons to support your statements, feel free to post them so people can discuss. I find it very unlikely this is going to be considered a small prioritized issue, have you any idea how many years it took for ccp to fix neutral remote repping in hi-sec? Even minor adjustments to the drone ui have been buried in the backlog for years, you clearly need to play eve for a few more years if you honestly believe this is something that is going to be implemented any time soon. I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Lawson Finch Sharke and Finch LLP 0	Posted - 2014.01.29 12:44:00 - [593] - Quote Abdul 'aleem wrote: Lawson Finch wrote: It's a shame this idea only has a handful of likes and no CSM or DEV interest Yeah we agree there. A dev is needed to comment on how feasible it is to implement at least, to address posts like dexington's. In the meantime, I can only guess based on current mechanics that it would be fairly easy to add. I was just looking at the thread for creating a Titan graveyard - that's got about 80-odd likes already in only 5 pages and has CSM and DEVs supporting it. It's quite a popular idea by the looks of it. This thread has 7 likes for the OP over 29 pages. And you've even linked it in your sig and spammed the Mission boards too. Have you tried posting it in C&P? I'm sure they'll go for it.
Abdul 'aleem Sumiko Yoshida Corporation 164	Posted - 2014.01.29 12:45:00 - [594] - Quote dexington wrote: Abdul 'aleem wrote: dexington wrote: This suggestion is clearly not as simple as just applying suspect timer to anyone who enters a mission area. You are literally suggesting changes to fleet, fleet warp and the procedure of reconnecting after a disconnect, this is not including what needs to be changed for the ownership of mission sites to work. Only CCP knows how easy or hard it would be to implement. There are a lot of existing mechanics that do things very similar to what would be needed to for a suspect flag for mission invasion to work. They have been posted already supporting the opinion that CCP should be able to make this change. If you know of any specific technical reasons to support your statements, feel free to post them so people can discuss. I find it very unlikely this is going to be considered a small prioritized issue, have you any idea how many years it took for ccp to fix neutral remote repping in hi-sec? Even minor adjustments to the drone ui have been buried in the backlog for years, you clearly need to play eve for a few more years if you honestly believe this is something that is going to be implemented any time soon. Like I said: only CCP knows for sure how easy or hard this would be. A dev post would be extremely timely right now..... There is a suggestion that will make it harder for griefers to grief missioners. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion Click "like" in the original post to support it.
Abdul 'aleem Sumiko Yoshida Corporation 164	Posted - 2014.01.29 12:47:00 - [595] - Quote Lawson Finch wrote: Abdul 'aleem wrote: Lawson Finch wrote: It's a shame this idea only has a handful of likes and no CSM or DEV interest Yeah we agree there. A dev is needed to comment on how feasible it is to implement at least, to address posts like dexington's. In the meantime, I can only guess based on current mechanics that it would be fairly easy to add. I was just looking at the thread for creating a Titan graveyard - that's got about 80-odd likes already in only 5 pages and has CSM and DEVs supporting it. It's quite a popular idea by the looks of it. This thread has 7 likes for the OP over 29 pages. And you've even linked it in your sig and spammed the Mission boards too. Have you tried posting it in C&P? I'm sure they'll go for it. I have not. Just re-post the original post or throw up a link? There is a suggestion that will make it harder for griefers to grief missioners. Add a Suspect Flag for Mission Invasion Click "like" in the original post to support it.
Lawson Finch Sharke and Finch LLP 0	Posted - 2014.01.29 12:59:00 - [596] - Quote Repost but word it differently to appeal more to criminals.
Riot Girl You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack 2638	Posted - 2014.01.29 14:14:00 - [597] - Quote Lawson Finch wrote: Repost but word it differently to appeal more to criminals. So we're dropping the 'protect mission runners' thing and going with a 'encourage PvP' angle. Yeah, that might appeal to more people. You should get a job in marketing. Oh god.
unidenify Caldari Provisions Caldari State 32	Posted - 2014.01.29 15:03:00 - [598] - Quote I still said my idea is better put delay timer for players to loot mission item while no delay for loot junks
Mag's the united SCUM. 16617	Posted - 2014.01.29 15:14:00 - [599] - Quote It's quite obvious that the OP has his premise on how things should be, has based the idea on that premise and will not deviate from it. No matter how wrong the original premise was. He has no desire in admitting any flaws in it and most likely can't see them any way. This idea opens up an easy *'Lofty'* style scenario and makes it rather easier than the original (long closed) aggression loophole. This would make his actions look minor, in comparison to what could a wait mission runners after a change of this sort. For this reason alone, it will never be implemented. His flawed premise also means that a perfectly legitimate profession, is now liable for a suspect flag. Not only that, but the idea expressly changes the mechanic and asks for wrecks now to have ownership. Which goes against the design concept for that profession. Opening up calls for all wrecks to show ownership, no matter where they are. If we chose to ignore the *'Lofty'* similarities, then this change is also enough to reduce this idea to the fail heap. There are other situations that this idea could bring. One of them being how long that mission space flags anyone entering it? Then all of the problems that arise out of that particular decision. But like I said. No matter how many issues you bring to light, the OP will point to some flawed excuse, based on his flawed premise and simply dismiss it. In others words, you're all piing into the wind. Destination SkillQueue:-** It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Qalix Long Jump. 61	Posted - 2014.01.29 15:21:00 - [600] - Quote Abdul 'aleem wrote: Like I said: only CCP knows for sure how easy or hard this would be. A dev post would be extremely timely right now..... Because, as should be obvious, responding to random, obviously bad ideas is a good use of dev time



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] .. 22 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.